I agree with the suggestion - put forward by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) earlier this week - that companies found guilty under the new corporate manslaughter laws should be slapped with big fines and made to publicly explain their actions to investors and shareholders.
But I'm not so sure about the idea of suspending all or part of the board of directors, a further IOSH recommendation to the Sentencing Advisory Panel.
IOSH president Ray Hurst is right to say that some fairly radical measure are needed to ram home how serious an offence this is and how vital it is for organisations to have in place proper measures and standards to deal with health and safety.
But how would this work in practice?
Would it really be in the best interest of the public or staff to have a company that was then effectively a captainless ship? Who would be making crucial strategic decisions and deciding on the right strategy for the business?
Hurst said in such situations "alternative governance arrangements" would be needed to ensure the safe operation of an organisation. But what form would these take, who would decide on them, how long would they be in place?
There are too many unanswered questions here. The thinking behind the idea - to punish individual directors for their failings - is laudable. But in reality it would probably end up damaging rank-and-file staff who had nothing to do with the original offences.
What do you think? Is suspending board members a valid option for punishing companies under the new Corporate Manslaughter laws?